The writer points out that Schumer doesn't really rebut the charges very well -- she just offers a series of deflections (this is all about bringing down a successful female comic) and attacks on her critics (such as Tammy Pacatelli, who Schumer says is accusing her of plagiarism out of jealousy).

By the way, that MAD TV sketch she ripped off from start to finish was hilarious.

Unless she paid MAD TV to re-do the sketch (a possibility -- maybe something that happens in the field, and why not?), then we have a problem.

Buzzion asks, "Is it possible that the writer of the MAD TV sketch is now a writer on her show?"

Sure that's possible -- and I'm not sure what the etiquette and legality is there. Can you re-sell your old material? I imagine you can, in many cases. Comedians and writers might have contracts that specify that they're coming in with some bits, and they're leaving with those same bits, that they keep them, and can re-sell them at a later date.

A magazine doesn't purchase your article outright -- it buys the right to be the first publisher in North America for a year or whatever. Then it reverts to you.

This one's so blatant that I gotta think there's some legality that justifies it.

Otherwise, wow, game over.

It's occurred to me that the writer of this sketch (who I assume wasn't Schumer) might have owned the sketch himself, because he did it for, say, Second City or the Groundlings or something. So he has the right to sell it to Mad TV, and then sell it again to Schumer. Or something.

I don't know. I can imagine there being a perfectly innocent and plausible explanation.

Of course I can imagine the absence of one too.

My personal prediction, which I'm trying to get odds on from a Vegas sportsbook, is that Huma Abedin will fall on her sword claim she cut and pasted all the challenged material.